Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Tuscani01 said:
Transport Canada's rep just stated that there may need to be changes to the marine exclusion zone as a result of the runway extension and new jets... so Porter is BS'ing.
Click to expand...

Porter is a blessing for this city. Fares are down, service levels are up and frequencies are more convenient.

My flight was delayed 2h due to a snowstorm, got an email from Robert Deluce apologizing and a $100 credit for my next flight. That's service. Give these people whatever they want, they're nothing but an advantage for those of us who travel.
 
gweed123 said:
If that much is going to be spent on airport access improvements, what I'd like to see is a gondola from Union Station to a) the island airport, and b) the Toronto Islands. Porter and the airport get a "premium" connection to Union, and if designed properly, Toronto can ditch the ferry service to and from the Islands.

It would require only minimal changes to the surface infrastructure, and would remove a lot of the surface traffic heading to the airport. The traffic flow is also very spread out and relatively light and constant, perfect for a gondola. Also, crossing large bodies of water is difficult with a fixed link transit system, but for a gondola it isn't much on an issue if done properly.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate that Rob Deluce knew all along that he would lobby for jets in order to increase the return on his investment, I see gweed's idea, that of improved transit infrastructure to the island, as the best possible outcome. Not that I think waterfront residents will ever give up their fight against it--would you--but having a cable car to the island and being able to bypass the S. S. Minnow monopoly to Toronto's best shot at a real downtown park might represent the greater good.

I too have thought that a cable car on the west side (and a LRT connection in the east to the portlands/lower don) would be ideal. It would be similar to how Barcelona has a cable car to Montjuic on one side and a funicular on the other, easing accessibility. I think the Islands, even if only in the summer, represent central Toronto's recreational future. This could include improved restaurants and venues, fountains and gardens, and (gasp) hotels even before we talk about hosting the Olympics.

Toronto needs more places to go have fun.
 
quicksilver said:
As much as I hate that Rob Deluce knew all along that he would lobby for jets in order to increase the return on his investment,
Click to expand...

When he founded Porter in 2002 what jets was he thinking of lobbying for or did have incredible powers of future thinking knowing that the project Bombardier was going to launch 2 years later would eventually yield a jet that his lobbying had a chance of success with? ;)
 
TOareaFan said:
When he founded Porter in 2002 what jets was he thinking of lobbying for or did have incredible powers of future thinking knowing that the project Bombardier was going to launch 2 years later would eventually yield a jet that his lobbying had a chance of success with? ;)
Click to expand...

If it wasn't Bombardier making "whisper" jets it would have been embrear making "hush hush" jets or boeing making "silent" jets, any oxymoronic name to make everyone say "wow, how innovative." When you invest the kind of money required to start an airline, the corporate plan extends at least 15 to 20 years into the future. Along the way there are exit points for early investors to realize a return and get out, and for others to hop on board. Toronto's island airport expansion, if it happens, is one of those points in time. As some have suggested, Westjet is a likely suitor if approval happens. And their suggestions that they too would like to open at the island airport could be interpreted as a message that if Mr. Deluce does not negotiate, Westjet has the ability to test Porter's exclusivity advantage (and value).

So no, this process is not typically called "incredible powers of future thinking," but simply "planning."
 
Deluce and TPA acting in bad faith. What else is new? Is the freeloading TPA going to pay its bill to the taxpayers any time soon?
 
Forgotten said:
Deluce and TPA acting in bad faith. What else is new? Is the freeloading TPA going to pay its bill to the taxpayers any time soon?
Click to expand...

Why is that not being made a big issue? When is council going to debate that. And who are these executive councillors that voted for the $1M instead of what was owning, $50M?
 
Palma said:
Why is that not being made a big issue? When is council going to debate that. And who are these executive councillors that voted for the $1M instead of what was owning, $50M?
Click to expand...

Isn't the issue that the figure that some say is "owing" was in dispute because it was based upon an arbitrary land value on an alternative use basis....in which the alternative use was not feesible nor possible? So that led to a dispute between the TPA and the City that has been the subject of much negotiating and, might I say, unproductive back and forth mud slinging. I don't think there has ever been a point in time during that which the TPA said they were not willing to make any PILTs but the amount has been greatly in dispute.
 
Filip said:
Porter is a blessing for this city. Fares are down, service levels are up and frequencies are more convenient.

My flight was delayed 2h due to a snowstorm, got an email from Robert Deluce apologizing and a $100 credit for my next flight. That's service. Give these people whatever they want, they're nothing but an advantage for those of us who travel.
Click to expand...

Hey, Im pro-expansion and want to see jets flying out of the airport... but I'll call BS when I see it. The whole operation Deluce is trying to pull here has been nothing but sketchy. Come out with all the facts before making assumptions about the expansion. He's just making it harder for himself.

And btw, December was a rough month for Porter, with many delays, cancellations and a tonne of lost luggage. Many are still waiting for the lost luggage issue to be resolved after being given the runaround, and then silent treatment by Porter for weeks. They also operated at BBTCA after curfew, blaming the weather, however the TPA and Transport Canada found that conditions were fine and there was no reason to break curfew. They're being sketchy, and that's not how you earn anyone's trust.
 
Palma said:
As council meeting was yesterday, what was the outcomme or is decision been pushed forward?
Click to expand...


The Executive Committee are discussing it next Tuesday
 
Tuscani01 said:
Hey, Im pro-expansion and want to see jets flying out of the airport... but I'll call BS when I see it. The whole operation Deluce is trying to pull here has been nothing but sketchy. Come out with all the facts before making assumptions about the expansion. He's just making it harder for himself.

And btw, December was a rough month for Porter, with many delays, cancellations and a tonne of lost luggage. Many are still waiting for the lost luggage issue to be resolved after being given the runaround, and then silent treatment by Porter for weeks. They also operated at BBTCA after curfew, blaming the weather, however the TPA and Transport Canada found that conditions were fine and there was no reason to break curfew. They're being sketchy, and that's not how you earn anyone's trust.
Click to expand...

Based on the available evidence, I would probably fall on the "no jets" side of the equation for the time being. Having said that, can I infer that we agree that the real issue is the TPA's woeful lack of governance and apparent inability to separate the public interest from Porter's interest? Ultimately, if a properly functioning governance regime determines, through a robust evidence-based process, that the airport expansion is in the public interest, I think (hope?) that I will be satisfied. As it is now, the TPA's foot is on the scale on Porter's side, and we are left with soundbite politics about "paving the entire lake" and "whisper jets". One can't blame Deluce for being a greedy bastard, but the TPA has no excuse (other than being a corrupt den for partisan, politcal hacks and dirty bagmen) for abdicating its proper role.
 
Why aren't different options for a downtown airport being discussed!? There is no reason why an expanded facility could not be built to the south with vastly improved passenger and transport infrastructure as well as allowing the waterfront to resume what it is clearly intended. And imagine the development potential of the current site! The TPA has latched onto the airport as a raisin d'être and viciously opposes the idea of a different Island location for obvious reasons. Competent planning would sort the whole thing out.
 
Last edited:
^^^

When residents are asking that the existing airport be shut down/demolished I imagine it would be much more difficult to propose an entirely new airport facility (or and expansion of said facility into previously unused lands), any expansion south would involve Hanlan's point beach and likely some of the islands. If you think Porter faces opposition now, wow I can't imagine if they proposed what you are proposing
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top